MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An exploration of Hul’qumi’num Coast Salish peoples’ attitudes towards the establishment of no‐take zones within marine protected areas in the Salish Sea, Canada

2012· article· en· W1525959178 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Cheri Anne. Ayers, Philip Dearden, Rick Rollins

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island University
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsMarine protected areaMarine conservationFishingOpposition (politics)GeographyPopulationPolitical scienceResource (disambiguation)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental planningEnvironmental protectionFisherySociologyEcologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Government has committed to establishing a national network of Marine Protected Areas. Progress in the Salish Sea (Strait of Georgia) of British Columbia has been slow. Opposition by First Nations is a factor as these protected areas have the potential to impact on Aboriginal rights. This case study with the Hul’qumi’num First Nations examines their approaches to marine conservation and their perspectives on “no‐take zones” as a component of marine conservation. The study used a variety of community engagement procedures including relationship building, hiring of a Hul’qumi’num research assistant, conducting individual interviews, focus groups, and field surveys. Interviews were conducted with 41 participants contacted because of their knowledge and interest in marine resource use. The views reported provide a rich understanding of Hul’qumi’num attitudes, but cannot be generalised to the whole population. There was widespread support for efforts to involve local First Nations communities in the development of management plans for marine resources, and also for recognition of First Nation reliance on marine resources for food, social, and ceremonial needs and for economic development opportunities. The establishment of permanent no‐take zones was met with both opposition and support. The most highly endorsed statement about no‐take zones is one of principle—that they are a violation of Aboriginal rights. However, there was also strong agreement that permanent no‐take zones would help reduce over‐fishing. The National Marine Conservation Area program is in its infancy and it remains to be seen how the “strictly protected” zone of the legislation will be interpreted in relationship to Aboriginal harvesting practices. However it is clear that successful conservation will only occur with Aboriginal consent in many areas and there needs to be greater investment in understanding Aboriginal perspectives on marine conservation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennesSame topicCoral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesFrench-language works237,207